THE EVIDENCE OF THE LAST NINE YEARS SUGGESTS OTHERWISE: Rule of Law Actually Applies to Democrats, Too: Those critiquing Trump for flouting norms should take a look at Obamacare’s unauthorized spending.

So Obamacare required insurers to make special accommodations for people whose incomes were below 250 percent of the poverty line. The companies have to provide these individuals with silver plans (the second-lowest benefit tier) with lower deductibles and co-payments. This is, of course, quite expensive for insurers to do. So the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act also granted subsidies to go to the insurers to cover the cost. Well, to be precise, lawmakers who dreamed up Obamacare promised the payments to insurers, but did not appropriate any money to actually pay them.

Yes. Congress can mandate subsidies without also mandating a funding source. Medicaid is another example. This is crazy, but there it is.

For once the Constitution is admirably clear on how the executive branch should handle this quandary: “No Money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in Consequence of Appropriations made by Law; and a regular Statement and Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of all public Money shall be published from time to time.” The law appropriated no money for these cost-sharing reduction payments. But the Obama administration went ahead and paid them anyway.

The House of Representatives then sued the Obama administration to halt those payments. That’s how Trump and the cost-sharing reduction ended up in headlines together: The Trump administration was on deadline to decide what to do about the case, which is currently wending its way through the courts. (SPOILER ALERT: They punted.)

This whole mess illuminates sadly well our current tug-of-war over the rule of law — what it means, and how much it matters.

Our ruling class has chosen not to be bound by the law, because it’s inconvenient. This will not end well.